The Sea Cat
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Aug 26, 2011, 09:43
|
This is a very good article. It has always seemed to me that change will really start to happen, especailly in this country, when the comfortable middle starts taking a serious kicking through an obvious stitch up. No one cares about the poor or the less priviledged, and previous Labour and Tory Governments have kept them
exactly where they want them. Bread and ciricuses, whilst industry and communities have been destroyed. Now that the middle, shock horror, will be on the receiving end of the wealthy elites blatant greed agenda, the game's looking like it may well be up.
The shit has barely begun to hit the fan here in the UK, and the younger generation will be a vital part in change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/dead-end-globalisation-youth-rage
|
mcshafty
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 05, 2011, 08:20
|
They should send them all here to Australia!
Oh that's not allowed for petty theft anymore is it?
I remember lessons at Primary School where we talked about unfair punishments for minor crimes and how barbaric they seemed - and how such things couldn't happen again.
We need Kenny Everett to dispense some Round'em up, Stick 'em in a Field, and Bomb the bast'rds style justice.
Oh, I just heard Cameron asked Kenny to come back and do that but he wouldn't. So it looks like rubber bullets and water cannon will have to do.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 17, 2011, 04:16
|
There's a clear difference between crimes out of anarchy and basic fraud,,,and most people would accept that the ramifications of those crimes are different and so, should be considered differently by the legal system.
C'mon folks... this is BASIC!
|
Popel Vooje
|
Edited Sep 17, 2011, 14:38
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 17, 2011, 14:36
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: There's a clear difference between crimes out of anarchy and basic fraud,,,and most people would accept that the ramifications of those crimes are different and so, should be considered differently by the legal system.
C'mon folks... this is BASIC!
Exactly. Large-scale fraudsters should get much longer sentences than one-off looters, seeing as their crimes are far more damaging both to the economy and the moral fabric of the country.
|
Moon Cat
|
Edited Sep 17, 2011, 16:27
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 17, 2011, 16:27
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: There's a clear difference between crimes out of anarchy and basic fraud,,,and most people would accept that the ramifications of those crimes are different and so, should be considered differently by the legal system.
C'mon folks... this is BASIC!
Yes there is a difference. The frauds were commited by people in the public trust that often have a hand in dictating the law and are supposedly in positions of responsibility and are expected to perform as such. In other words, as well as the actual crime of fraud, their actions represent clear and repugnant abuses and violations of their publicly elected positions and power and a betrayal of trust. Their 'crime' extends far beyond the act itself. A kid nicking trainers is unlikely to be in a position of public office.
You're right...it is basic. And it's far more rotten at the top EXACTLY because of who they are and what they do.
|
wychburyman
|
Edited Sep 17, 2011, 17:00
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 17, 2011, 16:58
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: There's a clear difference between crimes out of anarchy and basic fraud,,,and most people would accept that the ramifications of those crimes are different and so, should be considered differently by the legal system.
C'mon folks... this is BASIC!
I was just making a point, you idiot. Besides, lets also factor in that we are dealing with a young lad who really should have known better, but got silly on the spur of the moment (possibly, I don't know the full story) and a middle aged public servant who with malice aforethought, knowingly and carefully planned the embezzlemant of the nation; "basic" or not. And according to our great leader anarchy wasn't a part of the plan, it was "sheer criminality", whatever that is.
|
drewbhoy
|
Edited Sep 17, 2011, 20:37
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Sep 17, 2011, 20:34
|
|
Moon Cat wrote: geoffrey_prime wrote: There's a clear difference between crimes out of anarchy and basic fraud,,,and most people would accept that the ramifications of those crimes are different and so, should be considered differently by the legal system.
C'mon folks... this is BASIC!
Yes there is a difference. The frauds were commited by people in the public trust that often have a hand in dictating the law and are supposedly in positions of responsibility and are expected to perform as such. In other words, as well as the actual crime of fraud, their actions represent clear and repugnant abuses and violations of their publicly elected positions and power and a betrayal of trust. Their 'crime' extends far beyond the act itself. A kid nicking trainers is unlikely to be in a position of public office.
You're right...it is basic. And it's far more rotten at the top EXACTLY because of who they are and what they do.
That is totally correct, but sadly the establishment will protect the establishment, can't let the old school get sent down for to long. At the same time they consider the rest of us as statistics to throw away into a heap marked ignore. They don't give a toss as long as they can line their pockets with our money!
|
neighbourofthedrude
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Oct 16, 2011, 12:52
|
|
The boy was wearing a track suit.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Oct 23, 2011, 02:09
|
This is a crap argument ...we could easily be talking murder vs. manslaughter...
..the Legal System is established to consider all the factors you raise...
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong, but
Oct 23, 2011, 02:12
|
|
Don't despair...get yourself in "the Establishment"...or forever whinge in the wilderness...
|
